consider providing abstract implementation of platform-specific classes

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The platform-specific ones would register in some fashion with the generic
one, which would delegate.

This came out of Issue 1. See there for context.

In particular, these comments were left outstanding:

Comment 15  by philippe.marschall, Oct 11, 2008

Since we are moving more and more of the unportable tools to the platforms
and let them reimplement them would it make sense to move
WAWalkbackErrorHandler (which is  almost empty) there instead of having
#walkbackClass in SeasidePlatformSupport?


Comment 16 by jfitzell, Oct 11, 2008

I guess that depends pretty much on whether we are "demanding" that porters
implement a walkback error handler. If not, then it certainly might as well
move.

If we expect all ports to have that handler, it's a bit funny to have them
all reimplement it...

The other option would be to have WAInspector in the non-platform-specific
package that defines the protocol and have a class-var that a
platform-specific package can register itself in.

But I don't feel strongly about any of the solutions.

Comment 17 by da...@teleport.com, Oct 11, 2008

I like the idea of at least a skeleton of the implementation sitting in the
core (or dev) packages ... Like the inspector, there are only a handful of
things that need to be ported and the rest of the implementation is fine
... so unless the class is completely empty, I'd be inclined to leave it
there...

I also like the idea of registering platform-specific
implementations...makes it possible to have multiple inspectors or
debuggers (production vs development) even in the platform-specific case.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by jfitz...@gmail.com on 27 Oct 2008 at 2:52